The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifices has been cited as
a key document situating mysticism (or quasi-mystical practice) within the
communities associated with the Qumran literature; and in doing so, attempting
to establish an earlier date for this tradition compared to prior views, such
as those espoused by Scholem. There are
thirteen liturgical compositions to be recited on successive sabbaths, whose
communal chanting is considered by some to have a “numinous” quality that allow
a communal alignment with the angelic realm.
It contains a continuous meditation on “seven” (e.g. seven blessings,
seven rejoicing, seven places, seven wonderous words) as a key for using the
propitious quality of the sabbath to seek union (yachad) with the
angels. This union, along with a vision
of the “upper most heaven, all its beams and walls, all its form, the work of
its structure” allows us to join with their knowledge, and praise of
G-d. Just as “the chariots of His inner
shrine give praise together, and their cherubim and their ophanim bless
wondrously” – so may the community achieve a liturgical communion with
G-d.
In many respects this work and the traditions surrounding it
are – to quote Newsom “belong to the same complex stream of religious tradition”
as the Mystic traditions that were to come later, albeit with discontinuities
also. For example, the common praise with
the angels is reminiscent with the Kedusha where the angelic praise from
Isaiah and Ezekiel are recited in communal prayer; albeit that the text
describes the praise of the angels rather than quotes their words. The descriptions of the celestial tablet and the
chariots are themes further explored in the Merkava and Heikhalot mysticism,
but where the latter support a rabbinic viewpoint whereas the Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice are priestly in nature.
The recitation of the hymns may create a religious experience, but not
one deliberately described as being an incubatory practice for an ecstatic or
disassociative experience.
The continuities and discontinuities between the Songs of
the Sabbath Sacrifice and later mystical practice are subject to a large
degree of consensus, yet with very divergent conclusions regarding its place in
the history of mysticism. For Alexander,
“the evidence that has accumulated for the existence of mysticism in the Qumran
community is now substantial and compelling”.
Whereas, for Newsom “In the narrow sense there is no evidence of
mystical praxis in the communities represented by the literature of the dead
sea scrolls”. There is less a
disagreement around evidence, than in definition or threshold for counting
something as mystic.
What then is the dividing line between having common themes or
precursors to mysticism and being itself being a mystical practice? After all, common liturgy alone does not a
mystic make: mystic and non-mystic alike
will recite the Kedusha in synagogue if they are a practicing Jew. Nor do the specifics of any common theory do
so, such as the desirability of union with angels to understand their knowledge
(the purposes of G-d and ones part in them). After all, Maimonides – the arch rationalist –
argues that one should have union with the Active Intellect (the highest of all
angels) to understand the actions of G-d and how the world is governed.
Both Alexander and Newsom would agree (albeit expressed slightly
differently) that mysticism require religious experience, a desire for union or
communion with a transcendent presence and a Via Mystica - a method or set of practices for achieving
that state. Both would agree that the
practice of reciting these Sabbath songs creates a religious experience and
aesthetic that helps the worshipper appreciate the heavenly cult. Yet the lack of deliberate aforethought that
the practice should induce an ecstatic state is the sticking point that means
it doesn’t count as mysticism. But as
one may say in rabbinic parlance “mai nafka mina?” – does anything hinge
on this?
Often ‘mysticism’ would be used to express an opposition or contrast
to something else. As Alexander points
out “mysticism, for Scholem, emerged as a kind of protest against the
rigidities imposed by halakhic Judaism”.
Or alternatively:
- Mysticism is opposed to rationalism with regard to a source of knowledge
- The esoteric mysteries of a mystic; as opposed to the exoteric meaning accessible to all
- Individual disciplines and techniques; as opposed to communal ritual ones
- A movement from the physical to a spiritual realm; as opposed to a descent (or integration) of the spiritual to the physical world
·
Etc
In the case of these texts, it is unclear what substantively
is at stake, or what would be different (or falsifiable) were they to be mystic
or not. There is agreement that the
texts are modelled on the priestly and temple tradition. Knowledge is mediated via the “knowledge
among the priests of the inner sanctum.
And from their mouths come teachings concerning all matters of holiness
together with precepts”. It is the case
that the temple (with an architecture mirroring the celestial one) that is the
locus of G-d within the physical realm; and that transformed man remains
embodied. It is clear that this practice
is (regardless of its presumed aesthetic) is communal, exoteric and
ritualised.
Thus while the lack of it being an “ecstatic” practice seems
a slender basis for Newsom to deny the term, it doesn’t seem much is gained by
it either. It doesn’t seem to provide a
relevant contrast to other practices of the time that would move it from being
in the same chain of traditions as later mysticism, to being one that
independently deserves the title itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment